A national disgrace, scoundrel and extremist*

Having pointed out in my last post, the misfortunate of electing a UKIP MEP in 2014 with 140k votes, while there were 450k votes or more that clearly wouldn't have wanted this stacked up in useless piles, the question is whether anything can be done about this.

Now I spent most of my political life as a member of firstly the Liberal Democrats and then the Greens, both proponents of PR and both parties who suffer under First Past the Post. So I am always wary of cries from major parties to vote for them for fear of letting the 'other' in. And this is a PR election, just not a very good form of PR that doesn't let people express a second choice. So if we are serious about blocking Brexit, we need to act.

Clearly in the Remain camp are the SNP, LibDems, Greens and CUK. Labour appear ambivalent - foolishly so in my view, as the flight from Labour in the English local elections testifies. And we have to count Tories as Brexiteers, prisoners of the ERG despite wiser counsel from such as Ken Clarke along side UKIP and Brexit, Farage's latest personal vehicle.

So, harkening back to #ToryFreeScotland, many people want a #BrexitFreeScotland.

But we are at risk of simply repeating 2014 again when despite there being 450k votes available to defeat UKIP, their 140k was sufficient to elect Coburn.

What could have been different? Well, this is one simulation. Click on the image title to take you to the website, then click on Scotland. Select 2014 in the drop down box at the top and then play with the sliders to see what could have happened if some people had changed their vote.

But that is 5 years ago and much has changed. Polls are odd things and every one has a margin of error. The big national polls typically sample 100-200 people in Scotland which isn't enough to get a statistically robust sample. I look for polls with sample sizes of over 1000 for Scotland.

This poll puts Labour and Brexit neck and neck for the 6th seat with the SNP a nose behind. Within the margin of error of polls, its hard to predict.

You can select this Poll on the voter switch simulation map mentioned above and try out switch strategies for yourself.
What's certain is the CUK, Greens and LibDems are not part of the mix and that's 13% of votes that could be pivotal in determining whether Farage and Co get to smile on 23rd May. Even tenth of those votes switching could make the difference but within the accuracy of polls, I'd not like to call it that finely.

It's up to Liberal Democrat, Greens and CUK voters whether they want to switch and where. It may be that Independence pushes most Greens to SNP (and the SNP seem to be casting their net that way with recent changes in approach to climate change).
But assuming that even UKIP supporter realise that Brexit is now the main de facto Brexit Party, I'd not like to rely on luck.

So its with some sadness, that I won't be voting LibDem or Green at this election (sorry, Sheila). I certainly think CUK should chuck it in at this point.

I'll vote SNP.

If you can't bring yourself to do that, perhaps due to a strong unionist bent, then I'd suggest LibDem. CUK are untested but the profile of voters is 'LibDemmy'.

And of course LibDems might be an acceptable home for Labour and Tory Remain.

I get slight cross when the method of allocating seats for the European Parliament Elections is referred to as complicated. So long as you can divide by 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 its really easy.

Lets look at the last European Result in Scotland in 2014. Scotland has 6 MEPs to elect.

2014 Election

Party

SNP

Lab

Con

UKIP

Green

LibDem

Brit1st

BNP

NO2EU

Total

Votes

389,503

346,219

231,330

140,534

108,305

95,319

13,639

10,316

6,418

1,341,583

Stage 2

194,752

346,219

231,330

140,534

108,305

95,319

13,639

10,316

6,418

1,341,583

Stage 3

194,752

173,110

231,330

140,534

108,305

95,319

13,639

10,316

6,418

1,341,583

Stage 4

194,752

173,110

115,665

140,534

108,305

95,319

13,639

10,316

6,418

1,341,583

Stage 5

129,834

173,110

115,665

140,534

108,305

95,319

13,639

10,316

6,418

1,341,583

Stage 6

129,834

115,406

115,665

140,534

108,305

95,319

13,639

10,316

6,418

1,341,583

The SNP has the largest number of votes, 389,503 so they get a seat (red). But for them to get a second that pool of votes would need to be shared between 2 MEPs so their vote is divided into 2 for Stage 2.

In Stage 2, Labour has the highest number so they get an MEP and their vote is divided by 2.

In Stage 3, The Tories get a seat and their vote is divided by 2.

In Stage 4, the SNP get a second seat. Now if the SNP were to get a third seat, their vote would need to be shared between 3, so their original vote is now divided by 3.

In Stage 5, Labour get a second seat and like the SNP in Stage 4, their original vote is not divided by 3.

In Stage 6, UKIP has the highest number and therefore takes the final seat.

You'll notice a few things here : the parties will very low number of votes - Brit1st,BNP, No2EU didn't get a look in. But neither did Greens or LibDems. Greens would have needed some 32,000 more votes to overtake UKIP - an increase of some 30% on their performance. For Greens to have won, they would have needed to find nearly 1 extra voter for every 2 they had. That's a big hill. The hill for the LibDems was even steeper.

The SNP was the numerical runner up. But for them to reach 140k they too would need to find another 32,000 voter (32,100 to be exact). That's because the 129,834 figures is a third of their original vote. However, it is perhaps easier to envisage the SNP finding an extra 8%.

However you wish to cut it however, UKIP with 140k votes won despite there being nearly 450k unused votes between SNP, Labour, Greens and LibDems and I'm hoping very few of those voters would be happy with the thought that their votes sat in a useless pile while UKIP got elected.

And that's the weakness of d'Hondt : it's the second dumbest electoral system after first past the post as it doesn't allow transfers between parties. And of course, parties get to decide the order of candidates on the list and there is nothing voters can do about this.

Erection of 550 Dwellinghouses
(Up to 500 Residential Units and a Minimum of 50 Leisure/Resort Units),
Community Facilities (Class 10 Non-residential Institutions and Class 11
Assembly and Leisure), Development Falling Within Class 1 (Shops), Class 2
(Financial, Professional and Other Services), Class 3 (Food and Drink),
Landscaping and Supporting Infrastructure

Land At Menie
Estate Balmedie Aberdeenshire AB23 8YE

This post is an attempt to guide objectors as to how to object to Trump's latest planning application at Menie. In short, he is proposing to, rather than build the resort in phases alongside profitable residential development, to just proceed with building the houses.

Anyone, anywhere in the world, can object. You can either write to the Planners at

That URL will also give you access to the application and comments lodged thus far.

You have until 11th October only to make comment.

Please make it clear

1. That you object to the proposal

2. Give grounds for that objection : the simplest is simply that this proposal does not accord to the 2006 Outline Permission nor the OP3 allocation in the 2017 Aberdeenshire Local Developmet Plan and the Executive Summary amplifies this a little

3. Add any further detail you wish : maybe pick an aspect of the whole that particularly resonates with you.

4. Refrain from simple abuse of Mr Trump but if there are elements of his past behaviour that illuminate issues with a linkage to planning matters or material considerations, please do mention these. Edit: Reference in the first draft here to 'misogynist,
racist and downright boorish Mr Trump' seems to have resulted in an objection being rejected. Please be very careful not to include such comments.

Executive Summary

The original proposal (2006/4605) was approved by Scottish
Ministers but strict phasing to ensure that the (profitable) open housing was
only delivered alongside the development was set out ‘In order to ensure the implementation and completion of the golf course
resort components of the proposal, as these are the elements of the proposed
development which the planning authority considers will bring economic and
social benefit to the area.

This application seeks to circumvent all the conditions and
agreements of the original planning permission, bringing the building of
mainstream housing first, removing the incentive to develop the resort in
phases.It also replaces the existing
Masterplan which was agreed with Aberdeenshire Council in 2010 with ill defined
‘Chapters’ of development.

Further it seeks to renegotiate or avoid the agreed package
of required infrastructure development associated with this significant
development.The current Section 75
agreement includes provision for sewerage upgrades, primary school provision, community
facilities (including a general store to serve the development), new junction
onto the A90(T) dual carriageway, and affordable housing.All these elements are at risk if the
developer is allowed to avoid the implementation of the current Section 75
legal agreement between itself and Aberdeenshire Council to the massive
dis-benefit of existing communities.

The applicants claim this is necessary as the development is
otherwise unviable.The resort at it
stands employs 90-95 people and makes a small operational profit.Significant losses are however posted annually
due to ‘Administration and Management Charges’ amounting to a third to a half
of turnover.This ensures a tax
loss.This application is claimed to increase direct
employment on site by around 80: this is paltry in comparison to the initial
claims which underpinned the 2006 permission and is certainly not grounds to
depart from the principles of the permission.

While economic circumstances are different from those in
2005/6 when the scheme was conceived, a more major factor impacting the
viability of Trump Organisation businesses, including this one, may bethe increasingly toxic nature of the brand with resorts, properties and hotels
worldwide being rebranded away from the name Trump to avoid undesirable associations.

The new ‘Chapters’ provided in this Planning Permission in
Principle’ portions of this application seek to replace the existing agreed
Masterplan.However this is
lacking entirely in the coherence and detail of that Masterplan : replacing
some attempt to design a community with isolated blocks of housing and resort
developments.

Following the 2011 Zit Award for Scotland's worst building to the Clubhouse
in the Carbuncle Cup, it was to be hoped that the developer would have heeded
the advice and avoid pastiche and worse.However this is not the case with the larger ancillary building such as
the Lodges and Gym being repeats in design terms the faults of the Clubhouse
and the ‘Town Hall’ hilariously impersonates a church.A referral to a Design Panel to review this
lost opportunity would be appropriate.

Permission for APP/2018/1814 should not be granted until the
grade related junction at Orrock is constructed in accordance with the 2008 OPP
and the 2017 Aberdeenshire Local Plan conditions.More footpaths and cycle paths will be
required to improve access to local facilities especially parallel to the
coast, other than the existing routes along the beach.

This application
should be rejected as it does not conform to the 2006 Outline Planning Permission
nor the OP3 allocation in the 2017 Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan and
would be significantly harmful to the integrity of the planning system, the good
principles of design, involves damage to the environment including ancient
woodland, and contains inadequate proposals relating to the required
infrastructure to support a development of this scale and nature.

Full Objection Grounds

Background

In 2008, Scottish Ministers granted Outline Planning
Permission (2006 OPP) for a Golf Resort at Menie after the initial refusal by
Aberdeenshire Council.Importantly the
significant breaches in Local and National Policy including the environmental
damage the development would cause were considered to be outweighed by economic
benefits of national importance.That
led to strict phasing of the development to ensure that the mainstream housing
element of the development, said by the applicant to be necessary to cross fund
the resort, was delivered in phases as the resort was delivered.

‘Reason: In order to
ensure the implementation and completion of the golf course resort components
of the proposal, as these are the elements of the proposed development which
the planning authority considers will bring economic and social benefit to the
area.’

Details of phasing conditioned in the 2006 OPP are given in
Appendix 1.

To date, a portion of Phase 1 has been delivered: a golf
course, a small clubhouse and Menie House and some Steadings have been
converted into visitor accommodation.

The applicant has a history of pushing the boundaries of the
original 2006 outline permission e.g. ENQ/2015/0526 | Planning Permission in
Principle for the Erection of 850 No. Residential Units, 1900 No. Leisure
Accommodation Units with Ancillary Commercial Development, Land at Menie Estate Balmedie Aberdeenshire , almost double
the size of the 2006 consent.This was
viewed by the Reporters at a heavy handed attempt to influence the then
Proposed Local Development Plan.There
is also a significant history of retrospective applications at Menie,
illustrating that granting the ‘benefit of the doubt’ to this developer is
counter to good planning (Appendix 3)

New proposal

The applicants are now arguing that the scheme is unviable
and will remain so unless they are permitted to build all 500 open market
houses in advance of the rest of the development.

In addition the proposal seeks to significantly alter the
agreed Masterplan that was agreed in 2010.The 2010 Masterplan which presented a coherent vision for both the
residential and resort elements of the proposed development is replaced in the Planning Permission in
Principle portion of this application with ill defined ‘Chapters’.No justification is offered for this change.

This peculiar hybrid application is very much to the applicants
advantage : they have presented studies
associated with the full planning permission for portions of the development,
ignoring the much greater impacts of the whole resort which may result in a
very piecemeal and poorly planned whole.

It further seeks to revisit/renegotiate the agreed ‘planning
gain’, presumably ignoring the existing Section 75 agreement that covers
matters such as

·Access onto A90(T)

·Provision of a primary school

·Connection to Sewerage

·Community facilities

·Contributions to Affordable housing.

The proposal to permit all 500 open market housing to be
built in advance of the rest of the resort, clearly removes any and all
incentive for the developer to complete the resort.That means that the paltry economic benefit
the resort is delivering (see Appendix 2) despite the significant environmental
destruction will continue, possibly indefinitely.

It is interesting to note that as recently as 2015, the applicant
consulted on a larger development, ENQ/2015/0526 | Planning Permission in
Principle for the Erection of 850 No. Residential Units, 1900 No. Leisure
Accommodation Units with Ancillary Commercial Development, Land At Menie Estate
Balmedie, clearly believing that this could be viable.The applicant in 2006-2008 oversold his
proposal and sadly many decision makers were taken in[2].Hopefully decision makers will be less likely
to view this proposal through rose tinted spectacles.

Economic benefit

Original application and current

The applicant argues in 2008 that there was a significant
economic benefit with the hard elements including

·1080 on site jobs

·1240 jobs within Aberdeenshire (an additional
160)

·1440 jobs across Scotland (an additional 200)

And in addition there were claimed to be 6000 (man years) of
construction jobs, often confused in the public mind with 6000 actual
jobs.

The applicant also claimed that the global brand would focus
attention on the North East of Scotland and indeed the Trump name is well
known. Unfortunately, the higher profile
of Mr Trump has also highlighted the less savoury aspects of his character, leading many to
regard him as now a toxic brand with cities around the world[3]
such as Toronto[4]
and his home town of New York[5]
at pains to remove the name from buildings and even the Trump Organisation
itself rebranding[6]
its own developments.While Mr Trump
undoubtedly has a base support willing to ignore his flaws, the ethos and
characteristics of Mr Trump and indeed his children who now operate the business
are increasingly at odds with Scottish sensibilities. This is undoubtably impacting he economic viability of Trump businesses.

The resort as it stands is posting small operating profits
but due to ‘Administrative and Management Charges’ amounting to around a third
of turnover, the resort are posting losses and, of course, have not paid any
tax beyond VAT and Payroll taxes (Appendix 2).

This application

In their most recent Economic Impact Assessment accompanies
this application, TIGLS claim in the Executive Summary

It is difficult to reconcile these figures with the claim
(Table 2.4) of 80 on site jobs being supported by this proposed development,
which with the usual multiplier effect may then equate to 100 FTE jobs across
Scotland (Table 2.6).The disparity is
with TIGLS conflating construction jobs with permanent jobs associated with the
operation of the resort.

This is a habit that TIGLS developed when the resort was
first mooted and they confused 6000 man years of construction jobs with
continuing employment in order to exaggerate the impact of their proposal.I trust no-one will fall for this ploy
again.

To be fair, Table 2.11 of the Report gives 171 construction
jobs, indicating that TIGLS anticipate this portion of the overall development
to be delivered over 11.7 years which begs the question of when, if ever, TIGLS
propose completing the resort elements that are supposed to deliver the
economic bonanza which is supposed to be Aberdeen’s post oil future.

The development of retail, spa, gym, and 100 bed spaces is
claimed to add 80 FTE jobs at Menie which would bring the total jobs at the resort
up to around 175, one-sixth of the 1080 promised in the original Economic
Impact Study.

So the actual numbers of permanent jobs at Menie are at
maximum given in Table 2.5 of the EIS

Space Type

FTE
Jobs

Commercial retail

40

Commercial office

20

Leisure (townhall)

10

Leisure (gym)

10

Total

80

to which TIGLS applies a multiplier to reach 100 jobs.

Anyone who knows the area will dismiss the claim that
employment in tourism in the immediate area (10km) has increased from 5% to 33%
in from 2009 to 2016.It must be
suspected that the BRES survey sample size is generating an artefact that the
Trump Organisation are only too ready to report, alongside their selective
reporting of other issues in the Economic Assessment.It should be noted that they do not submit
the commissioned reports themselves.

The claimed economic benefits do not justify the further
erosion of good planning principles and policy and certainly do not justify
setting aside the carefully considered and crafted phasing the 2006 outline
planning application and its attendant conditions, recently confirmed in the
2017 Local Development Plan.While the
applicants may claim that their development should simply be treated as a
housing allocation in that plan, it is clear that the development was only
included in the LDP due to the outline planning permission : the Local
Development Plan must not be used as a backdoor to circumvent the critical
terms of the 2006 Outline Planning Permission.

Transport and access

The Transport assessment is limited to the 500 mainstream
houses and 50 units of visitor accommodation that are the subject of detailed
proposals in this hybrid application.It
therefore fails to plan for the much larger resort development or for the
possibility of major events being hosted at Menie.It could be of course that the ‘toxic Trump’
brand means that the promoters of this development have given up on all hope of
hosting major events, with even iconic Turnberry impacted by the association[7].If this is the case, then the developer can
have no objection to a condition preventing major events without specific
permission.

The Transport Assessment recognises that few amenities are within
close proximity, the reason for community facilities including a general store
forming part of the Phasing (Appendix 1)..The document seems to suggest that they expect people to walk or cycle
to Balmedie to use amenities including general store, post office, library and
school.This seems optimistic due to the
distance – in excess of the maximum threshold of 1600m for walking (PAN 75
stated in para 2.1.8 of TA), and the lack of safe walking and cycling routes,
not to mention the variety of normal weather conditions in NE Scotland.

The proposed walking links via Balmedie Beach whilst
suitable for leisure walking are not suitable for accessing Balmedie village
amenities, especially at high tide.

Access to and from the estate, on foot, by bicycle, should
be provided with routes both parallel to the coast inland from the beach routes
to complement Nortrail and provide access between the future settlement of
Menie and Balmedie as well as across the estate from the old A90 to the
beach.The ‘Chapters’ plans conspicuously
do not plan for such accessThe proposal
to provide of cycle lanes (4.3.6) is welcome and suggest this should be a
condition if planning permission granted.This would also require speed limits and traffic calming measures along
the old A90 route.Further exploration
of developing a network of cycle routes to link to NCN1 and SUSTRANS cycle
network would also be welcomed.

Local Road network

The limited transport assessment accepts that the ‘main
origin and destination of the bulk of the development trips will be to the
south towards Aberdeen. Development traffic will therefore require to pass
through Balmedie in order to reach the new Balmedie trunk road junction’.

The original PPiP application was granted subject to the legal
requirement in the Section 75 agreement and re-iterated in the current
Aberdeenshire Local Plan that ‘a new grade separated junction in the vicinity
of Orrock House’ would be required.The
current TA replaces this condition with a roundabout onto the old A90.Yet clearly the construction of the flyover
at Orrock was designed to accommodate a future grade related junction.Such a junction would allow all traffic for
the new development to readily access the Menie Estate and would significantly
reduce the adverse effect of increased traffic flows into and through Balmedie
and facilitate an alternative route when accidents etc close part or all of the
A90(T).

Trip Generation and Traffic Impact

Tables 5.1 and 5.2 appear to significantly underestimate the
likely trip generation associated with the proposal at 562 AM and 509PM peak
trips.There seem to be no figures given
for traffic generated outwith peak hours – despite likely high numbers of
private car journeys, deliveries, taxis etc.An equestrian Centre is also likely to generate increase traffic flows
including horse boxes throughout the year, especially if it is expected to be a
competition centre.

The bulk
of these journeys are expected to pass through Balmedie.This will significantly increase traffic
flows within the village, particularly on the old road past the White Horse.The
conclusions in section 5.5 are ludicrous, particularly that the 1A and !B
proposals will only result in 38 AM and 31 PM journeys through the old A90 and
Balmedie (5.5.6)

Residential travel Plan Network.

Whilst setting out worthy aspirations, the notion that a
residential travel pack will significantly reduce the number of car journeys
appears extremely optimistic.While new
residents may well attempt to take more exercise, they will still be reliant on
motor vehicles for the bulk of their journeys.

The proposed development is being clearly targeted at
wealthy families with high car ownership rates and usage.There is no indication that electric vehicles
are being encouraged or that residents will have car charging points.

Public transport

Bus operations in the vicinity are currently being reviewed
after the opening of the A90(T) dual carriageway.The timetables mentioned in the Transport
Assessment are therefore unlikely to continue with the probability being that
Menie will end up with an approximate hourly service rather than continue to be
served by multiple routes using the A90 corridor.

Only a limited number of buses pass are expected to pass
through Balmedie village, others have customarily by-passed Balmedie so going
shopping by public transport for day-to-day supplies will bedifficult by public transport.This will increase number of car journeys to
Balmedie significantly.

Summary and Conclusion

The OPP granted in 2008 and Section 75 agreements clearly
state that the development of Menie requires the construction of a grade
related junction onto the A90(T) at Orrock.

The current Application seeks to side-step this important
condition and to route development traffic along the old de-trunked A90.This is clearly unacceptable.

The traffic flow data an which the TA is based appears to
significantly under-estimate the likely number of vehicular trips associated
with the proposed development.

It should be noted that promised arrangements for access
have not been fulfilled and access to the estate at various points(Leyton Cottage, Menie Lodge, etc) remain cut
off and actively discouraged in contravention of the Land Reform Act
(2003).The Estate needs reminded of its
duties including to those with mobility impairments and the combination of
locked gates and the deliberate placing of obstacles should not be continuing.

Environment

Trees and habitat

The application includes the information that 50% of the
Ancient Woodland on the site is to be felled in order to accommodate the
development.Given the amount of land
available and previous Masterplan which demonstrated how these important areas
could be retained and indeed be an attractive feature of the development, this
should be robustly rejected and indeed these areas be afforded maximum
protection via designations where these do not already exist.A recent walk on the estate revealed ad hoc
felling of trees that did not appear to be justified by the condition of the
trees.“Ancient and semi-natural woodland is an important and irreplaceable
national resource. It must be protected and enhanced, as should be all native
and mature woodlands.”[8]

Identified in the survey were internationally and nationally
rare lichens: the habitat for these needs to be preserved not just the hosts.

Listed species

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) makes no mention
of the requirement for a Habitats Requirement Appraisal (HRA) which SNH in
their response has advised is necessary. It is surprising that no badger setts
were found and indeed, some of the numbers of other included in the report
appear on the low side as compared to similar habitats elsewhere and many
species that have been seen (by local residents and visitors) in the area are
missing from the EIA. Both barn owls (green status) and tawny owls (amber
status) have been observed in the woodland as have marsh harriers(amber) and
short-eared owls elsewhere on the estate to name but a few. There is also no
recording of invertebrates in the assessment. That said the EIA identifies that
there will be an overall reduction in biodiversity which should be offset by
various mitigation strategies (9.1.5).However, TIGLS record on both compliance and the environment is not good
and not least this is driven by the attitude of Trump himself with his
ignorance or wilful disregard of environmental issues as illustrated by the
following points

1)The Menie Environmental Management Advisory
Group (MEMAG) met infrequently and often TIGLS staff failed to attend. Its
decisions were ignored. It has now ceased to meet and indeed TIGLS have asked
for this requirement of the planning permissions to be rescinded.

2)Tom Dargie, the ecologist originally employed by
Mr Trump as an advisor to the development of the golf course has stated that his advice was ignored by Mr
Trump[10].

3)Otter holts were to be built on the Blairton
Burn. This has not been carried out and indeed one wonders if this could be a
factor in the cessation of otter activity recorded near Menie house. (6.3.2
Environmental Impact Assessment)

4)Mr Trump has made much of being a climate change
denier, his scepticism of scientific evidence is also well reported across a
broad spectrum of well-regarded media, including
his legal challenges to the Aberdeen Offshore Wind Development.

5)Trump’s management style is to remove opposition.
He has had the highest turnover of staff of all presidents for the past 100
years and one of the main reasons as found by the Washington based research
group Brookings Institute was “However,
record-setting turnover during Trump’s first year may be the result of at least
two other unique factors. One factor was the president’s focus on loyalty over
qualifications. Since the president relied on many of his connections in the
private sector and was reluctant to hire those who opposed him during the campaign,
the absence of prior White House experience among the ranks of the senior staff
was glaring.” [11].We see this In the turnover of key personnel
including golf course designers and ecological advisors at Menie.

The environmental impact assessment appears to be very
limited with many species that have been observed regularly by local residents
and visitors, missing. To rely on the applicant to both accurately monitor and
record the species and habitats present and put proper mechanisms in place to
mitigate for habitat and biodiversity loss would be futile given their past
record which shows that this is a low priority. There should be no loss of
Ancient Woodland permitted as there is sufficient space to incorporate the
housing elsewhere.

Water and sewerage

The Trump Organisation have been caught using unauthorised
standpipes in order to irrigate the grounds, even during this summer’s drought.They also have a history of a rather cavalier attitude to maintaining
the private water supplies of properties that lie within the estate
boundary.While it is recognised that
these are private legal matters, the planning authority has a duty to ensure
that mitigation measures are put in place to prevent adverse impacts on neighbouring
properties where these can be predicted.

It should be noted that the resort developments for Phase 1
of the 2006 Outline Planning Permission were required to be linked to the
Balmedie main sewerage system.They
still rely on septic tanks.No further
development should be permitted until this situation is regularised in line
with the 2006 Outline Permission Section 75 agreement.

Masterplan

In 2010 a Masterplan from Hoskins Architects[12]
adding detail to the 2006 Outline Planning Permission was agreed.This Masterplan presented a coherent vision
for the development with the creation of a residential core to the south and
west of Menie House and the resort to the north.The
Masterplan has been used to inform subsequent piecemeal planning applications
for the conversion of Menie House into hotel accommodation, the Steadings into
additional visitor rooms, the banqueting suite appended to Menie House, etc.

It was also used as the basis of a withdrawn planning
application

This application seeks to
replace that Masterplan with ‘Chapters’ of development without explaining any
rationale for this, or detailing what each ‘Chapter’ entails.

Built Heritage

On the original plans, Menie House, then said to be intended
as the private residence of the Trump family, was left with its curtilage more
of less intact.Subsequently Menie House
has been brought into the core of the resort, first by conversion to the hotel
and service centre for the Steadings converted to accommodation and latterly by
the now expired planning permission to append a Banqueting Suite onto it.It is to be hoped that the ‘Town Hall’
functionally replaces the banqueting suite.However, this proposal inserts development within the curtilage of Menie
House significantly impacting this listed building.The setting of Menie House is however
already compromised by alien elements such as the flagpole, artificial stone fountain
and new access and parking areas.

The submitted documents commit to some archaeological
watching briefs where features of possible interest are known.This should be treated with a high degree of
scepticism given the appalling record of MEMAG which was supposed to oversee
the building and operation of the golf course but rarely met and proved
entirely ineffective due to it entirely advisor status and the developers’
total lack of engagement..In these
circumstances, with a developer who appears intent on ignoring normal norms of
behaviour, the imposition of advance trial digs in areas of interest would be
appropriate.

The
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment presents a detailed study of the effects
of the proposed development on the known and potential archaeological and built
heritage of the site.Amongst other
things, the assessment identifies that 'there
is a moderate to high probability of discovering buried archaeological remains
within the proposed development site' and presents a draft 'Written Scheme
of Investigation' (WSI) detailing archaeological trial trenching evaluation of
the site to be conducted prior to commencement of development works, and
subject to approval by Aberdeenshire Council.This is welcome, but needs to be rigorously monitored, by an agency
independent of the Trump Organisation given their appalling history of ignoring
advice.

The
Assessment also identifies that 'The
introduction of the two proposed new eight bedroom lodges, immediately to the
north of Menie House, would appreciably change its current setting'...'
resulting in a moderate adverse effect'.

However
there is no mitigation proposed, and no justification for the siting of the
lodges in that location is given in the development proposals, nor
consideration of alternative locations.The WSI refers to the APP/2010/0423 approved masterplan, but overlooks
the fact that it does not show any new buildings in the vicinity of Category B
listed Menie House.

Aberdeenshire
Local Development Plan (2017) Policy HE1: states that: 'We will not allow
development that would have a negative effect on the character, integrity or
setting of listed buildings, or scheduled monuments, or other archaeological
sites'. Permission to erect the
two lodges in that location should therefore be refused.

Landscape

The
Landscape Assessment provides scant evidence for its conclusions and lacks a
rigorous approach to identifying receptors and assessing impacts from those
points. The Assessment admits that
further work is necessary and this is reinforced by the proposals for significant
removal of tree belts and areas of woodland and the unnecessary increase in
densities of development particularly impacting Menie House.

We
would suggest that further work is required to assess the proposals in the
light of impacts on significant receptors including

Name

Reason

Grid Reference

Cock and Bull

Illustrative of views
from old A90, the first expansive views of the coast north of Aberdeen.

NJ966193

Pettans Church

Impact on historical
site and its setting in landscape

NJ968196

Menie House 1

Impacts on curtilage
of listed building

NJ975205

Menie House 2

Impacts on curtilage
of listed building

NJ978203

Menie House 3

Impacts on curtilage
of listed building

NJ977206

Menie House 4

Impacts from main
rooms of Menie House

NJ977205

Hermit Point

Impacts from inland
ridge

NJ987210

Mill of Menie

Impacts on existing
residential properties

NJ983200

Frontal dunes 1

Impacts on
recreational users of dunes and beach

NJ990207

Frontal dunes 2

Impacts on
recreational users of dunes and beach

NJ983189

Frontal dunes 3

Impacts on
recreational users of dunes and beach and visitors to Country Park

NJ977181

North Beach Road

Impacts of visitors to
Country Park

NJ973182

Building design

In 2011 the Menie Clubhouse was awarded the Zit Award for
Worst Building in Scotland[13]
in the Carbuncle Cupwith Michael Rasmussen, architect and fellow of the Royal
Incorporation of Architects, saying:

“The building was designed by Huntly architects Acanthus df, who in the
past have turned out some very fine buildings. If one is to design a pastiche
of an historic building then at the very least it needs to be true to the
scale, style and proportion of the period – this building is none of those.
With the Menie Estate’s location within a landscape of heroic importance,
Acanthus have a duty to society, the environment & their profession to
produce a building that befits such a wonderful and unique setting.

“By producing this third rate building a golden opportunity has been lost to
create a sublimely elegant, understated, contemporary building that could have
been a beacon for the best that Scottish Architecture. We have the talent –
what a shame it was not utilised in this instance.

“One can reflect that this is most likely a classic example of an architect being
“told” what to do by his wealthy and powerful client & in so doing
relegating a noble profession to nothing more than a second rate draftsman.
What price integrity – when sold out for the might $. Resignation from the
commission would have been an honourable solution. Shame on you Acanthus.”

The developers and the architect, now under the name
CovellMathews, seem to have learnt no lessons from this with e.g. the Lodges and
Gym echoing the derisible Clubhouse.The
‘Town Hall’. possibly intended to replace the banqueting suite attached to
Menie House for which permission has mercifully lapsed, impersonates a church.

There seems to be a substitution of ornamentation for design
with even simple structures such as garages requiring no less than 5 external
finishes.

A full review of the designs proposed would be appropriate
given the eventual scale of this development.Design is not merely a matter of
taste but can root a
place in the landscape, both physical and cultural and engender a sense of
place.At present the Trumpton cartoon
seem to be as much a source of inspiration than Aberdeenshire and references to
e.g. Monymusk are merely insulting.

Appendix 1: Phasing

2006 Outline Planning Permission Phasing Condition

2018 Application and Completions (bold)

Phase

Resort completion required

Housing

Other facilities required as part of Section 75 agreement

1

Golf course

Clubhouse

450 bedroom Hotel

36 Golf Villas

Staff Accommodation

etc

None

Links to sewage works at Balmedie

Golf course

Conversion of Menie House and
Steading to visitor accommodation

‘hotel’ elements such as Gym, retail.

2

One quarter of holiday accommodation (275 units)

Start of housing construction

Expansion of sewage works in Balmedie.

New or extended bus services.

Community facilities, including general store, nursery crèche, etc

50+ units of visitor accommodation

3

Further quarter of holiday accommodation (275 units)

101st to 151st private house

Primary school and associated facilities to accommodate 225 pupils.

Grade separated junction onto A90 (T).

Contribution to 51 affordable market houses at Balmedie

4

Further quarter of holiday accommodation (275 units)

201st to 251st private house

Second tranche of affordable houses at Balmedie

5

Final tranche of holiday accommodation (275 units)

301st to 400th private house

6

401st to 500th private house

500 mainstream houses

Appendix 2: Extract from Accounts

Actual performance

The actual performance of TIGLS against that is not
encouraging.TIGLS has made a loss of
around a third to a half of its turnover each year it has been open, albeit
that is largely fuelled by the ‘Administration and Management Charges’.One can only suspect are a device to transfer
profits when these are eventually made outside of the UK as no sensible
business incurs such high charges against such a modest turnover.

In contrast to the promise of jobs and the predictions of
further jobs in the so-called Economic Assessment accompanying this
application, jobs have plateaued in the mid 90s and losses are starting to
increase

About this blog ...

This blog is published by Debra Storr using facilities provided free of charge at www.blogger.com.The main posts are my opinions: comments are the responsibility of the posters of the comments.Occasionally, I invite Guest Blogs : their opinions are, of course, their own.